The copies are stated to be copies, and it should be plenty obvious from the fact that these 'dollar bills' are just bits.
AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to pass around an image of a bill so long as it isn't of super-high quality and I thought that the US government even made moderate-resolution images of US currency available specifically for use in artwork.
PS: Being a work of the US government, there are no copyrights attached to US currency and they are in the public domain, copyright-wise.
They may be pretty standard terms, but that doesn't mean they're good or anything. IMO, they're evidence of three major problems in our society:
1: It's ridiculously expensive to be sued, even if found completely innocent (to the point that barratry is brutally effective).
2: That there is a huge imbalance of power between individuals and organizations (or between larger and smaller organizations): Notice how there are no indemnities from the website to the user.
3: That contract law is extremely broad, and the only punishment for making a contract in violation of the few restrictions that exist is for that section to be removed and reinterpreted as narrowly as possible.
IMO, a boycott is unmerited, but it doesn't mean that all is fine with contract law.
Copyrights very much are monopolies. Works are not substitutable, or poorly substitutable at best, meaning that each individual work is a market onto itself.
Writing a new book wouldn't remove that monopoly, but instead create a new commodity (and another monopoly should the new copyright proprietor so choose).
"I think Google's page rank is based on the number of clicks of particular links with like search terms"
No one except Google knows what the algorithm is - it's a trade secret. That said, I doubt it's so simple. Other factors that likely influence ranking are how many other sites link to the site in question (which is what google bombing relies on) and how well the text of the site matches the search term.
Actually, calling copyright a right isn't being very honest either. Copyright is a privilege.
Rights are things that intrinsically exist and are merely formalized by codifying them into law, whereas privileges do not naturally exist and are created by law or custom.
The semantics are important. Rights are inherently right, and privileges are at best neutral and often carry a negative connotation.
For example, TV is a privilege for children. There is no mandate that parents allow them to watch TV, and it can be withheld for any reason (common reasons are the parent thinks TV rots the brain or as punishment for bad behaviour). Copyright should fall into the same category. It's a privilege and it should only be extended to the extent that it benefits humankind, and only insofar as it is not abused.
"The movie industry has one main lobby that they can put all their weight behind. So does the recording industry. Why don't we have one?"
Here's one very good reason why not to emulate them:
The MPAA and RIAA operate as a trust. Their members pool their individual political and market power into a single entity that has more market power (both on the retail side and the lobbying side). It's a very dictatorial setup, and is corrosive to a democratic society.
You can never get everyone in a democracy to agree, and the internet being about as democratic an institution as there is, it just isn't feasible to have just one advocacy group, or even a dozen.
PS: It's my opinion that both the MPAA and RIAA should be seized and shut down by the US government for blatant and ongoing violation of US anti-trust, anti-bribery, and anti-racketeering laws, but we all know who the government serves.
I tried taking the survey. The first time it didn't let me finish, because I said I had no experience with WIPO (which is true, as it's not like they invite just anybody to their meetings).
So I went back and lied to continue the survey. Here's some of the gems of self-serving and push-poll questions:
- How do you assess the importance of IP in the following areas: (Economic development, Business growth, Providing solutions to major global challenges (such as poverty, hunger, public health and climate change), Encouraging creativity, Protection of innovation, Technological advancement).
While it's technically correct that copyright is important with respect to encouraging creativity, that's only because 'important' technically just means it has a large effect, for good or bad, but the English used certainly doesn't imply that.
- Who do you believe is the global leader in the protection and promotion of IP?
Obvious ego-inflating blather.
- How important are Intellectual Property (IP) issues to my organization in 2012?
It's implicit that only corporations have valid opinions with respect to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Individuals are nobodies.
Under current law, a trademark neither identifies a producer, nor a product. It's a piece of property that property that the owner can do pretty much as they wish.
The mark owner can:
- License it to any other company or person, including to multiple ones at the same time, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the producer of a product or service.
- Use it on any product, or multiple products at once, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the product or service.
- Can sell, give, or license it will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to owner.
- Can change the products at will, or change which products are sold under the trademark at will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to product.
PS: I'm quite upset with trademarks in general. This post was more to show how messed up the system is rather than support it.
Would it be possible to not link to stuff behind a paywall? That "Monty Hall Dilemma" link is behind a paywall good for nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents.
"Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form)."
If I'm reading this correctly, this also means a complete abolition of fair use and fair dealing. There's a whole lot of wrong stuck into that single sentence.
Re: But what about the illegitimate users? They may want the evidence destroyed!
Without hard evidence to the contrary, any number is just a guess. Personally, I guess about 80% is legal and 20% is infringing, but there's no way to back that up.
I do think you're on to something with the reduce piracy angle. There's a lot of people who aren't particularly fond of breaking the law, but live paycheck to paycheck (or are children of such people) and are pushed by income reasons to pirate.
When even Charlie Chaplin movies are still under copyright, there aren't any reasonable substitutes to works under copyright. 14 years would make 1998 the year of record. That would open up the entire Atari, Nintendo, and Super Nintendo libraries as a source of cheap, readily available entertainment in the game area, and stuff like Star Wars and Star Trek from the TV/movie area.
PS: From what I've personally seen, the Super Nintendo is actually still in rather widespread use among poorer children, perhaps because both the console and games are pretty darned cheap secondhand.
56 years is still a ridiculously long term, but it's a step in the right direction. There's nothing to say that the term can't be reduced more later.
I'm sure the copyright corporations weren't thinking that 95 years was the ideal term when they pushed through the Copyright Term Extension Act back in 1998, but they figured in was a step in the direction they wanted (infinite terms).
He's probably sick of the stress that he's being put through. I don't blame him. It takes a lot of mental fortitude to be a high-level public servant and not be corrupt. It's also usually not good for one's life expectancy.
It would be nice if he could stay, but it's his personal decision.
One of the documents on Wikileaks shows just this sort of secretive MPAA funding going on in Australia, so I'd say the odds of the MPAA working behind the scenes here are very good.
They've already destroyed Megaupload. That they haven't convicted anybody yet doesn't change the fact that Megaupload is gone, and will be even if everyone is found 100% innocent.
In short, there's no need to wait for a conviction because the corporate death penalty has already been served.
On the post: Since The RIAA & MPAA Say That A Copy Is Just As Valuable As The Original, Send Them A Copy Of Money
AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to pass around an image of a bill so long as it isn't of super-high quality and I thought that the US government even made moderate-resolution images of US currency available specifically for use in artwork.
PS: Being a work of the US government, there are no copyrights attached to US currency and they are in the public domain, copyright-wise.
On the post: For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
1: It's ridiculously expensive to be sued, even if found completely innocent (to the point that barratry is brutally effective).
2: That there is a huge imbalance of power between individuals and organizations (or between larger and smaller organizations): Notice how there are no indemnities from the website to the user.
3: That contract law is extremely broad, and the only punishment for making a contract in violation of the few restrictions that exist is for that section to be removed and reinterpreted as narrowly as possible.
IMO, a boycott is unmerited, but it doesn't mean that all is fine with contract law.
On the post: Why Ebook Portal Library.nu Differed From Other Filesharing Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Writing a new book wouldn't remove that monopoly, but instead create a new commodity (and another monopoly should the new copyright proprietor so choose).
On the post: RIAA/IFPI Explored Possible Lawsuit Against Google For Not Ranking iTunes Above Pirate Bay
Re:
No one except Google knows what the algorithm is - it's a trade secret. That said, I doubt it's so simple. Other factors that likely influence ranking are how many other sites link to the site in question (which is what google bombing relies on) and how well the text of the site matches the search term.
On the post: Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
The point of the story
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Copyright is a priviledge
Rights are things that intrinsically exist and are merely formalized by codifying them into law, whereas privileges do not naturally exist and are created by law or custom.
The semantics are important. Rights are inherently right, and privileges are at best neutral and often carry a negative connotation.
For example, TV is a privilege for children. There is no mandate that parents allow them to watch TV, and it can be withheld for any reason (common reasons are the parent thinks TV rots the brain or as punishment for bad behaviour). Copyright should fall into the same category. It's a privilege and it should only be extended to the extent that it benefits humankind, and only insofar as it is not abused.
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Why we shouldn't emulate the **AAs
Here's one very good reason why not to emulate them:
The MPAA and RIAA operate as a trust. Their members pool their individual political and market power into a single entity that has more market power (both on the retail side and the lobbying side). It's a very dictatorial setup, and is corrosive to a democratic society.
You can never get everyone in a democracy to agree, and the internet being about as democratic an institution as there is, it just isn't feasible to have just one advocacy group, or even a dozen.
PS: It's my opinion that both the MPAA and RIAA should be seized and shut down by the US government for blatant and ongoing violation of US anti-trust, anti-bribery, and anti-racketeering laws, but we all know who the government serves.
On the post: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Would Like To Know What You Think Of Them (Sorta)
The Survey is Terrible
So I went back and lied to continue the survey. Here's some of the gems of self-serving and push-poll questions:
- How do you assess the importance of IP in the following areas: (Economic development, Business growth, Providing solutions to major global challenges (such as poverty, hunger, public health and climate change), Encouraging creativity, Protection of innovation, Technological advancement).
While it's technically correct that copyright is important with respect to encouraging creativity, that's only because 'important' technically just means it has a large effect, for good or bad, but the English used certainly doesn't imply that.
- Who do you believe is the global leader in the protection and promotion of IP?
Obvious ego-inflating blather.
- How important are Intellectual Property (IP) issues to my organization in 2012?
It's implicit that only corporations have valid opinions with respect to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Individuals are nobodies.
On the post: Shattering pyrex To Show A Massive Weakness In Trademark Law
A Little Clarification
The mark owner can:
- License it to any other company or person, including to multiple ones at the same time, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the producer of a product or service.
- Use it on any product, or multiple products at once, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the product or service.
- Can sell, give, or license it will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to owner.
- Can change the products at will, or change which products are sold under the trademark at will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to product.
PS: I'm quite upset with trademarks in general. This post was more to show how messed up the system is rather than support it.
On the post: DailyDirt: Anthropomorphizing Animals
Link behind paywall
On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation
The End of Fair Use?
If I'm reading this correctly, this also means a complete abolition of fair use and fair dealing. There's a whole lot of wrong stuck into that single sentence.
On the post: Is The US Meddling In Polish ACTA Voting?
Finally some good news
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
Re: But what about the illegitimate users? They may want the evidence destroyed!
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
Re: Re:
On the post: Another Interesting White House Petition: Reduce The Term Of Copyright
Re: That's the Way to Reduce Piracy!
When even Charlie Chaplin movies are still under copyright, there aren't any reasonable substitutes to works under copyright. 14 years would make 1998 the year of record. That would open up the entire Atari, Nintendo, and Super Nintendo libraries as a source of cheap, readily available entertainment in the game area, and stuff like Star Wars and Star Trek from the TV/movie area.
PS: From what I've personally seen, the Super Nintendo is actually still in rather widespread use among poorer children, perhaps because both the console and games are pretty darned cheap secondhand.
On the post: Another Interesting White House Petition: Reduce The Term Of Copyright
A Step in the Right Direction
I'm sure the copyright corporations weren't thinking that 95 years was the ideal term when they pushed through the Copyright Term Extension Act back in 1998, but they figured in was a step in the direction they wanted (infinite terms).
On the post: European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The 'Masquerade' Behind ACTA
Re:
It would be nice if he could stay, but it's his personal decision.
On the post: European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The 'Masquerade' Behind ACTA
Re: Re: Good people?
On the post: People In Poland Come Out To Protest ACTA In Large Numbers; Polish Gov't Calls It 'Blackmail'
Re: So how much...
On the post: Discussing SOPA/PIPA Over At On The Media
Re: Does the U.S. have the power?
In short, there's no need to wait for a conviction because the corporate death penalty has already been served.
Next >>